NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

17475777980298

Comments

  • I’m wondering how the gun barrel sequence will be handled on the U.S. release? Obviously, it will be UAR distributing the film, so it can’t be the Universal globe segueing into the gun barrel as on the international release?
  • Posts: 6,709
    Ya know, the more time passes from my first viewing, the more I come to terms with many aspects of the film that really aren't for me. But, then again, why should they be?
    And the ones that mainly bother have to do with some dialogue, forced elements, M's depiction and the kid being such a prominent part of the 3rd act.
    That being said, that first part of the film is really a killer, with some of the best scenes the series has to offer.
  • I_SpyI_Spy Scotland
    Posts: 5
    Don’t plan to watch it again in the cinema. Why pay to be miserable and feel violated.

    Interestingly, I went with my son. He is 16 and only really knows the Craig era, but is a Bond fanatic. He loved NTTD and is ok with the death of Bond as he has been sensitised by the Marvel parallel universe way of thinking. “They’ll do it like Spider-Man.” So maybe a generational thing. That logic provides zero solace for this old dinosaur though. Still smarting and bitter.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    Yes to using "close-minded" but I think "not getting it" simply means not understanding it the way I do. That is not necessarily said in a mean, pushy way.

    I am off to dinner now. Talk to you later. I am interested in how many times you plan to see NTTD in the theater. So let me throw that out there. I hope to see it at least 4 times. What are your plans?

    If this was a general question, I'd like to see it again on the big screen but our local cinema is really too small and I made the mistake of getting front row seats so we were looking upwards - after a couple of years not going to the cinema it was disorienting (and also people's manners! - constant stream of people's shadows on the screen as they came in 20 minutes late. It's as though they've forgotten how to go to the cinema).

    I will definitely buy the DVD and in a way I prefer this, as we have a large TV screen at home and I like occasionally focusing on the detail and pausing it (like M's office, with which I am a bit obsessed, sadly). We have all the other Bond films on DVD.
  • Posts: 7,507
    I have never watched any of the Marvel films. Not a single one! Please ditch the riduculous narrative that you have to be a Marvel fan to like the ending of NTTD...
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    jobo wrote: »
    I have never watched any of the Marvel films. Not a single one! Please ditch the riduculous narrative that you have to be a Marvel fan to like the ending of NTTD...

    I'm not a Marvel fan. Will watch it if it's on. I've never had any problem with different actors at different eras - that's the nature of fiction. I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan as well and there is no need to overthink all this, because fictional temporal logic has its own structure. I'm 56.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,108
    jobo wrote: »
    I have never watched any of the Marvel films. Not a single one! Please ditch the riduculous narrative that you have to be a Marvel fan to like the ending of NTTD...

    Marvel is the McDonald’s of cinema. Even if I don’t necessarily like everything about the ending, NTTD is luckily far away from being anything like that ;)

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    Marvel makes consistently good and entertaining movies, but they’re rarely special.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I_Spy wrote: »
    Don’t plan to watch it again in the cinema. Why pay to be miserable and feel violated.

    Interestingly, I went with my son. He is 16 and only really knows the Craig era, but is a Bond fanatic. He loved NTTD and is ok with the death of Bond as he has been sensitised by the Marvel parallel universe way of thinking. “They’ll do it like Spider-Man.” So maybe a generational thing. That logic provides zero solace for this old dinosaur though. Still smarting and bitter.

    Interesting perspective, thank you for sharing that. I was wondering how much younger fans would take it.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    One of the criticisms of the DC era I've seen levelled here over the years by those long gone from the forum and those that still hang around, although it's never bothered me. DC never made them punch the air with those Bond moments of old.

    I utterly disliked the PB era and made no secret of it. I preferred the direction they were pushing the series in with TD, although they still couldn't relinquish the shackles of a very successful and loved Bond's era from that.

    So the DC era was a breath of fresh air and despite me utterly abhorring SPECTRE, this is my favourite era and 4/5, (well that is my take on things) is hugely impressive.

    Though I digress, this idea that DC never had any moments or very few where individuals felt they couldn't celebrate triumphantly.

    DC's films are laced with a dark tragedy, so even the great action sequences end with him not accomplishing what he set out to, or the conclusions of those scenes were hardly ones that left you grinning from ear to ear.

    I think with the exception of SP (maybe the PTS) DC's films have always fulfilled me. I guess it comes down to what you want from a Bond film. This was how they approached this version of the character, Bond killing Dryden and earning his 00 status made me grin.

    No, the conclusion of Madagascar isn’t what we have usually seen from Bond but you get DC learning not long after and his way he creates a diversion and gets the info to continue his investigation is pure cinematic Bond. The film set out how this Bond would continue. Not always succeeding but not for the lack of trying. Though the way this era ends is a combination of tragedy but no one can say that Dan’s Bond doesn’t save the day and with the biggest stakes of a Bond film since MR I think it can be argued.

    The previous 20 were a different take on the character, those had those moments, even the so called dark revenge one couldn't help itself from lapsing into RM antic, one of my biggest problems with LTK, at times a jarring mess of a film, at least QOS stuck to its guns.

    Though this idea that DC didn't give you this elation, then why do you assume that those that don't like this ending and feel betrayed that his era should have ended with an uncharacteristically upbeat ending?

    Why should it, if you think DC has never been a triumphant Bond, why should be now bow out on a moment reminiscent of other Bond's for fan's sake. The film has moments that harken back to the previous film, nods but when it comes to ending this tenure, this time, then Craig was always going to leave us, not with a fanfare but with a sense of tragedy.

    I think some have mistaken the death of Craig Bond for the death of Bond full stop. No one is saying the others died just this reiteration.

    Yes I'm a Craig Bond fan, have no issues with admitting it, I'm no new to the series, I saw my first Bond film aged 5 in 1977. So my time with the series has no bearing on me liking older versions of Bond more, I'm as invested in 2006 - 2021 as anyone who came to Bond through DC, I have memories of seeing Bond for over 40 years.

    I and others possibly buck the idea that I'd naturally prefer Bond of old but no I like this supposed woke, over sensitive take on the character instead.

    Connery is the best Bond, I'll admit it but Craig is my favourite. I think if you bought into this era and took that journey with Craig's Bond you will accept this more than if you just love Bond in general. You've gone to see the DC films but aren't that attached to them, you feel it is just another actor playing the part and this wasn't a game changer for the Bond series.

    I'm not sure how I could find myself getting upset about previous versions of Bond dying as we never dug enough into their characters, for the most part Bond was placed into a mission, with the traits, not a lot of depth but then that worked for a number of decades.

    So someone saying I don't think I could have held it together if so and so had died on screen. Although this would be about your emotional attachment due to nostalgia, growing up with that Bond, I think you'd be confusing the actor with the character. At no point are getting to know this person intimately, GL gives us the most insight previously.

    Dalton for all the Fleming purists claims doesn’t give us much more beneath the skin than the previous occupants of the roles.

    Whereas DC's Bond (although I know some hate this route the character took and would just like the stereotypical model of the character they associate with) they did dig into his psyche, went beneath the skin and told his story.

    So if as part of the character they decide to go from beginning to end, that is the only real justification for someone being genuinely upset, we've got people who haven't even experienced the film just read these threads and then will watch it.

    I'm sorry I don't really think you can appreciate the film as it was meant to be, you practically know everything, yet we are supposed to think when you see that you've experienced the film.

    I'm sorry but I will be discounting anyone that has read all these spoilers, I'm not sure your opinions can be taken seriously or you will have the genuine reaction to the film.

    Though I think some just hate this version of the character and have had the knives out from the beginning so will take great delight in tearing the film to pieces or hoping the box office drops off so they can say I told you so.

    Although if those that feel that way went and saw the film without reading every big point in the plot and this was their reaction, then I'm likely to accept that however much they pour scorn on it to those that keep saying I know all the spoilers and I'm not happy but I'll see it anyway.

    Fair enough knowing the big moment but having read how it plays out, in some cases in this thread discussed in great detail, sorry your reaction to the film will be flawed.

    This was not how the film was meant to be experienced and going in with this information and already knowing this and having formed an opinion you don't like already, instead of just waiting till you've seen the film and experienced these moments and then saying how you feel.

    I imagine some of you will call this arrogance but I feel there is enough evidence to say you will never see the film like I and others saw it because you have spoiled it for yourself. Therefore your opinion on it when you see it, needs to have this taken into account and had some consideration that you didn't experience the film the way it should be.

    You might have surprised yourself with going in relatively green but no walking in knowing the outcome is going to colour your opinion from the get go, you can’t see it like those of us that could wait and didn’t walk in with this information.

    Those who still have open minds even spoiled it that is their business but those having already expressed they don’t like it and have already pretty much had it spelt out to them, well….
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,147
    Bond's not dead. Why? Because NTTD never actually happened. Remember Fukunaga saying that he wanted the film to take place in Bond's head while he was unconscious in Blofeld's lair during SP, but Babs wouldn't go for it? Well, Fukunaga did it anyway! The events of NTTD aren't real - they're just a coma dream between Bond being coshed and him regaining consciousness in the chair.
  • I_SpyI_Spy Scotland
    Posts: 5
    Venutius wrote: »
    Bond's not dead. Why? Because NTTD never actually happened. Remember Fukunaga saying that he wanted the film to take place in Bond's head while he was unconscious in Blofeld's lair during SP, but Babs wouldn't go for it? Well, Fukunaga did it anyway! The events of NTTD aren't real - they're just a coma dream between Bond being coshed and him regaining consciousness in the chair.

    Right now, I’d take that! 😂
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I really wish they would have had the
    "History isn't kind to men who play God line" more like it appeared in the trailer. That was a fantastic line and it was sandwiched in during the film. Craig's delivery in the trailer was spot on
  • zerozerozerozero The far far east
    Posts: 58
    I've only skipped through the above 70-odd pages of comments but I went to see the film last night and really enjoyed it. There was something about the tone of it that was a real winner with the wry wit let out of the bag properly this time. I'd been waiting to see Spectre feature this heavily since OHMSS and it was a blast.

    Sure, it has its flaws but it's escapist fiction...

    It seems to me that they (Eon) have decided to clear the decks completely so that they have more scope to do what they want in future. Otherwise, I guess they'd eventually get to the James Bond centenary and still be making the same film.

    I wonder if they'll now be looking to the continuation novels for material?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 342
    One of the bizarre, ironic aspects of Bond dying is it (sort of) vindicates the CraignotBond group. They can say "Craig's Bond is a loser. He dies. He's not the hero. Fans supported a loser Bond for fifteen years."

    Had Craig's Bond survived NTTD he is the winner. He can go off with Madeleine and Mathilde and have a family life or still remain an active 00. He retains his inherent heroic status.

    By ending Craig's tenure with Bond atomized (!) it plays into the hands of anti Craig Bond fans. "See, we told you he wasn't right for the role. Barbara Broccoli appeased him too much and you get a crappy, depressing ending."




  • Posts: 1,394
    LizW wrote: »
    Yes to using "close-minded" but I think "not getting it" simply means not understanding it the way I do. That is not necessarily said in a mean, pushy way.

    I am off to dinner now. Talk to you later. I am interested in how many times you plan to see NTTD in the theater. So let me throw that out there. I hope to see it at least 4 times. What are your plans?

    If this was a general question, I'd like to see it again on the big screen but our local cinema is really too small and I made the mistake of getting front row seats so we were looking upwards - after a couple of years not going to the cinema it was disorienting (and also people's manners! - constant stream of people's shadows on the screen as they came in 20 minutes late. It's as though they've forgotten how to go to the cinema).

    I will definitely buy the DVD and in a way I prefer this, as we have a large TV screen at home and I like occasionally focusing on the detail and pausing it (like M's office, with which I am a bit obsessed, sadly). We have all the other Bond films on DVD.

    You know home media has upgraded from dvd right? Blu ray superseded dvd and now there’s 4K?

    I myself have only watched the film once.I think it’s kind of silly these days to see a film multiple times in a theatre when you only have to wait a few months ( sometimes even less than that ) for a film to arrive on home media.
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,474
    How violent is NTTD compared to the other Craig Bonds? I consider Casino the most violent, visceral.

    I had a bit a strange feeling during some scenes in NTTD. Too many innocent people are killed by the baddies and too many people are shot overall (especially by Bond). I prefer a longer brutal fight (like to one in CR) to numerous gun fights (NTTD).
    My wife watched it with me yesterday and thought that way too many poeple die in NTTD.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    jobo wrote: »
    I have never watched any of the Marvel films. Not a single one! Please ditch the riduculous narrative that you have to be a Marvel fan to like the ending of NTTD...
    Seconded. I positively loathe all comic book/superhero stuff, with the three exceptions being Tim Burton's Batman movies and Richard Donner's Superman. I don't read comics, I read books.
    I am content with just one viewing at a cinema. It'll come on home video soon anyway.
  • Posts: 7,507
    bondywondy wrote: »
    One of the bizarre, ironic aspects of Bond dying is it (sort of) vindicates the CraignotBond group. They can say "Craig's Bond is a loser. He dies. He's not the hero. Fans supported a loser Bond for fifteenth years."

    Had Craig's Bond survived NTTD he is the winner. He can go off with Madeleine and Mathilde and have a family life or still remain an active 00. He retains his inherent heroic status.

    By ending Craig's tenure with Bond atomized (!) it plays into the hands of anti Craig Bond fans. "See, we told you he wasn't right for the role. Barbara Broccoli appeased him too much and you get a crappy, depressing ending."




    What a completely pointless argument to make. The people on "CraignotBond" have made up their mind anyway. Why should the producers care about them? Why should we care?
  • It's quite clear with the numerous references to earlier Bond films/books, including the first, Dr. No, that this film is a closing of cycle, not just of Craig's bond, but a farewell to the Bond we knew. The marvel-style reboot will be a completely different animal.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    The more I think about it, it’s not even that they killed him that bothers me (again, I admittedly still need to see the picture). I think I said in another thread, I would probably feel really sad if any of the other actors died in the role, but not Craig. I think he’s a great Bond, but I’ve never felt that attachment to him. What bothers me, I would guess, really happened with QOS (which I greatly enjoy) and this, NTTD, is just the fulfillment of it. From the moment they decided to turn this era into an overarching saga I have been displeased with that direction. I love QOS, but it could have stayed essentially the same, without having such a direct connection to CR. Actually, keep Mr. White and Quantum, and carry on without the Bond/Blofeld backstory and leave out any major future references to Vesper. That’s all you need, a thin thread of continuity. I would’ve thought the EON would’ve learned a lesson from SF, and realize that the standalone pictures are a hit the audience after that one. Also that film gave us that great denouement, which told us we are back to square one, we are ready to go. My two biggest problems with SP were that it was boring, and that it tried too hard to force this continuity upon us. Now with this latest one they put it all out there. That this Era is so important that this figure has this neat little arc, and of course it must end in his death. The brazenness of the whole thing has always bothered me. Before this latest twist. That this arc had to be treated as it’s own thing. But aside from that, looking at CR and SF, it’s at least three, maybe four, great standalone exciting, Bond adventures, one foot in tradition, with the new look and a new bite to it. More than the death, I think it’s that. Because I realized that if there was a one shot Brosnan film, taken out of continuity, giving us an old man Bond. at the end of his days, and then they killed him off, I’d be fine with it.

    I really think it comes down to it bothering me that EON took itself and this last run of films so seriously and so preciously. It’s not the death.

    This kind of sums up my own feelings, I loved CR & liked QoS, But thought the arc started to change with SF which I think had a problem with it's identity it was conflicted, more like the first two DC films right up until the DB5 was revealed then it went more back to the past which they continued into SP which as you say was boring and very long winded with some rather dubious plot elements (Austin Powers, need I say more).

    Now we come to NTTD, I saw the movie at a minute past midnight on first release & had no idea how the action would pan out, as always the action was top draw, will not argue with that, however it was ticking along nicely up beat even, right up until Felix was killed, I think at this point I started having issues again like SF the direction & tone changed getting more morbid & serious which is not my idea of a Bond movie, just my opinion shared with some, not all, in the end I think I've accepted the death as basically can't do anything about it, still think it's a mistake though that hasn't been done before in 59 years.

    I started of liking DC as Bond but laterly I've gone off his incarnation, I think that's because he's had too much input.

    EON, ie, BB & MGW, I have never believed they "Don't get it", however I believe they have the same problem a lot a creative companies go through, they get too close to their product that they don't see any issues, I think now is the perfect opportunity to step back & look at the core elements, going forward with luck they'll get some new blood on the creative side.
  • SmeetsSmeets London
    Posts: 6
    That's the good part about NTTD and the ending of SP: Let time take it's toll and forget everything about NTTD. You want Bond driving away into the sunset? Well there's the end of SP for you. I am sure you can still buy the Blu-Ray collection of CR up to SP. Just consider that the Craig run and you're done. There will be no direct sequel to NTTD. At most there might be a few allusions to it somewhere in the future. Absolutely no need to ever engage again with a film that seems to cause some here such considerable emotional pain.
    Maybe someone will even do a fan edit of just taking the few seconds of Bond and Madeleine on the road in Italy in the PTS of NTTD up until Bond says "We have all the time in the world." and sticks it on the end of SP and everyone can be happy that James Bond has found a happy ending, got the girl and will just drive around the Italian countryside for eternity because nothing bad ever happens and he will never, ever die.

    So you think they went to the effort to put a daughter in and then won't bring that up in the subsequent film? I hope you're right but I suspect they have opened a can of worms here with the whole daughter thing.
  • SmeetsSmeets London
    Posts: 6
    thetruth wrote: »
    I plan never to watch this film again.

    You'd better turn off ITV then, they seem to show Bond films about every week these days
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 934
    Yes to using "close-minded" but I think "not getting it" simply means not understanding it the way I do. That is not necessarily said in a mean, pushy way.
    It still tends to come across as patronising or condescending. If the reason someone is criticising the film is that they misunderstood a plot-point (which does happen sometimes), then by all means point out their mistake, but if someone doesn't like a concept or a style, then using the 'Emperor's New Clothes' argument will just inflame matters, imo. It can too easily be used as a way of trying to invalidate an opposing opinion in much the same way as the 'true fan' argument.
    I am off to dinner now. Talk to you later. I am interested in how many times you plan to see NTTD in the theater. So let me throw that out there. I hope to see it at least 4 times. What are your plans?
    I generally don't go to see films more than once in the cinema - the Star Wars films when I was younger, and Raiders of the Lost Ark being the exceptions - so the next time I see NTTD will be on Blu-ray.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 4,603
    The daughter was used in the same way as Tony Stark IMHO but the execution was very poor. TS had a fully fledged father/daughter relationship (the dialogue was excellent IMHO) so his decision to go back "into the field" was a far bigger, more calculated sacrifice. Making his actions more heroic. Contrast that with Bond's realationship. The writers actually deny him the chance to get close to her and he's already been drawn into the mission. This was even re-inforced by the last scene, confirming that Matilder had zero emotional connection with her father and did not even know who he was.

    You could also say the same in other movies where there is no blood line but the relationship is there (Shane, Logan)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    thetruth wrote: »
    It's quite clear with the numerous references to earlier Bond films/books, including the first, Dr. No, that this film is a closing of cycle, not just of Craig's bond, but a farewell to the Bond we knew. The marvel-style reboot will be a completely different animal.

    I find your deduction extremely far-fetched. References are sometimes just playful and meant as little more than "fan service". This film did not tell us that a six-decade cycle was just closed. And even then, it doesn't validate any predictions about the future. The next Bond film could be a formulaic adventure that just happens, without any origin stories or whatever. And we would all accept that.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    thetruth wrote: »
    It's quite clear with the numerous references to earlier Bond films/books, including the first, Dr. No, that this film is a closing of cycle, not just of Craig's bond, but a farewell to the Bond we knew. The marvel-style reboot will be a completely different animal.

    I find your deduction extremely far-fetched. References are sometimes just playful and meant as little more than "fan service". This film did not tell us that a six-decade cycle was just closed. And even then, it doesn't validate any predictions about the future. The next Bond film could be a formulaic adventure that just happens, without any origin stories or whatever. And we would all accept that.

    I hope you're right. But it seemed just a little excessive this time and referencing Dr No does make it seem like - here we are, we've come full circle. It was an offering to the fans, an appeasement, a final farewell, before Bond gets killed, signalling the end of the Bond we knew. Now for something new...
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    patb wrote: »
    The daughter was used in the same way as Tony Stark IMHO but the execution was very poor. TS had a fully fledged father/daughter relationship (the dialogue was excellent IMHO) so his decision to go back "into the field" was a far bigger, more calculated sacrifice. Making his actions more heroic. Contrast that with Bond's realationship. The writers actually deny him the chance to get close to her and he's already been drawn into the mission. This was even re-inforced by the last scene, confirming that Matilder had zero emotional connection with her father and did not even know who he was.

    You could also say the same in other movies where there is no blood line but the relationship is there (Shane, Logan)

    If Bond was given the opportunity to get close to her before he died then you'd have people complaining about that. As it is we already have people complaining that he has a daughter full stop. I think given the circumstances they handled it well while still trying to appease everyone on that point.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 4,603
    Fair point but it begs the quetion, if you ar going to the touble of bringing in not only a charcter but a huge one in terms of the Bond arc, why not involve that character more in the story. IMHO, either dont have a daughter or fully commit to the concept of Bond being a father (with the emotion that brings.)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    One thing that struck me about Mathilde, is that she is obviously French, but Bond talks to her in English and she replies in French. Would it have alienated general audiences too much, if Bond had spoken French to her?

    A minor gripe I know but it stood out to me upon last viewing. The girl who played Mathilde was great though and she looked like Lea and Daniel's child
Sign In or Register to comment.